Alternatively, the state argues that the court’s order
satisfies both prongs of Curcio. To satisfy the first prong
of Curcio, the order or action must terminate a separate
and distinct proceeding. State v. Curcio, supra, 191
Conn. 31. The state argues that this prong is satisfied
because the correction of an illegal sentence is separate
and distinct from the matters determined in the defen-
dant’s long final criminal judgment. The state’s argu-
ment misses the mark. The question is not whether the
defendant’s motion to correct is a separate and distinct
proceeding from the underlying criminal judgment. The
issue is whether the court’s granting of the motion ‘‘ter-
minates’’ the proceeding. Clearly it does not. The pro-
ceeding will not be terminated until the defendant is
resentenced. Accordingly, the court’s decision does not
satisfy the first prong of Curcio.
To satisfy the second prong of Curcio, the rights of
the appellant must be so concluded by the order that
further proceedings cannot affect it. Id. ‘‘The second
prong of the Curcio test focuses on the nature of the
right involved. It requires the parties seeking to appeal
to establish that the trial court’s order threatens the
preservation of a right already secured to them and that
that right will be irretrievably lost and the [parties]
irreparably harmed unless they may immediately
appeal. . . . Thus, a bald assertion that [the appellant]
will be irreparably harmed if appellate review is delayed
until final adjudication . . . is insufficient to make an
otherwise interlocutory order a final judgment. One
must make at least a colorable claim that some recog-
nized statutory or constitutional right is at risk.’’ (Inter-
nal quotation marks omitted.) Hartford Accident &
Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co., supra,
279 Conn. 226. The state argues that the correction of
an illegal sentence through resentencing deprives the
state, victims, and survivors of their interests in the
finality of the long final original judgment. We are not
persuaded.
Page 8 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0